In the case of Doyle v. Keyed, No. 2024-CV-9036 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 16, 2025 Powell, J.), the court issued a decision denying various Preliminary Objections filed in a medical malpractice action arising out of the death of an infant during a complicated delivery.
Of note, Judge Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled nearly all of the challenges submitted by the Defendants, including a request by Lehigh Valley Hospital-Pocono Defendants’ request to severe their case from the claims against the St. Luke’s Hospital Defendants.
The court additionally rejected one doctor’s claim that he could not be held vicariously liable for actions by the hospital staff that worked under him. The court noted that vicarious liability may attach in a medical malpractice case under the “captain-of-the-ship” doctrine or where the physician exercises actual control over the staff members.
The court noted that, because the Complaint in this matter alleged that the doctor at issue had directed and supervised others during the delivery, those allegations stated a viable theory of vicarious liability.
The court additionally upheld the Plaintiffs’ claims of direct and corporate negligence against various Defendants.
Judge Powell also overruled objections to the claim for punitive damages. The court found that the facts alleged could, if proven, constitute reckless disregard warranting punitive damages.
The court also noted that, given that mental state conditions may be alleged generally under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b), such claims could survive the pleading stage.
The court also disagreed with the defense argument that childbirth procedures are not surgical acts requiring informed consent. The court noted that the allegations that the doctor failed to discuss surgical alternatives despite risk factors present stated a plausible informed-consent claim.
The court also allowed the Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed. The court found that the Plaintiff-mother, having suffered a physical impact and having observed her child’s death, and the father, who witnessed the traumatic delivery and aftermath, both fit within the recognized categories of Plaintiffs permitted to pursue negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. In this regard, Judge Powell noted that observation of the results of negligent medical acts can satisfy the contemporaneous observation requirement in a medical malpractice context.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Of note, Judge Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled nearly all of the challenges submitted by the Defendants, including a request by Lehigh Valley Hospital-Pocono Defendants’ request to severe their case from the claims against the St. Luke’s Hospital Defendants.
The court additionally rejected one doctor’s claim that he could not be held vicariously liable for actions by the hospital staff that worked under him. The court noted that vicarious liability may attach in a medical malpractice case under the “captain-of-the-ship” doctrine or where the physician exercises actual control over the staff members.
The court noted that, because the Complaint in this matter alleged that the doctor at issue had directed and supervised others during the delivery, those allegations stated a viable theory of vicarious liability.
The court additionally upheld the Plaintiffs’ claims of direct and corporate negligence against various Defendants.
 |
| Judge Mark Powell Lackawanna County |
Judge Powell also overruled objections to the claim for punitive damages. The court found that the facts alleged could, if proven, constitute reckless disregard warranting punitive damages.
The court also noted that, given that mental state conditions may be alleged generally under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b), such claims could survive the pleading stage.
The court also disagreed with the defense argument that childbirth procedures are not surgical acts requiring informed consent. The court noted that the allegations that the doctor failed to discuss surgical alternatives despite risk factors present stated a plausible informed-consent claim.
The court also allowed the Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed. The court found that the Plaintiff-mother, having suffered a physical impact and having observed her child’s death, and the father, who witnessed the traumatic delivery and aftermath, both fit within the recognized categories of Plaintiffs permitted to pursue negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. In this regard, Judge Powell noted that observation of the results of negligent medical acts can satisfy the contemporaneous observation requirement in a medical malpractice context.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: Lackawanna Jurist (Oct. 31, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Samuel Ramos on www.unsplash.com.
